Re: Freedom of Speech and Freedom as We Know It

[Andrew Mearman <ajmearman@xxxxxxxxx>]

I am for discussion of all kinds of issues on this
list, but these two e-mails seem to be rather
"off-topic."  The last time the pros and cons of "the
war" were raised on this list, the discussion was
choked off rather quickly.  Either it's appropriate
for this list, or it's not.

For one, consider the paragraph:
"Yesterday I wondered if this internet focused society
was a place that ought to show intense concern for
the debate and the fact that America is at war to
defend freedom of speech and freedom as we know it
from fascist attack and European indifference."

This is clearly highly contentious, and not really an
argument at all. It is very easy to reply to this, but
I won't because the list moderator deemed this an
admissible subject.

More importantly, is it suitable for this list?  If
not, which was the previous judgment, why is it
reappearing on the list?  When Ric called a halt to
the last discussion, he allowed one message each to
its protagonists: I took my one turn, but it seems
that others want more gos.  Let's have some consistent
criteria for what's permissible and what's not.

Andrew



--- Sven R Larson <slarson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Well spoken, John! There has been intense debate
> here in upstate New
> York after the arrest of a man in Crossgates Mall,
> Albany the other
> day for allegedly wearing a t-shirt with an
> all-peaceful political
> statement on it. The all-peace movement (I don't
> like the label
> "anti-war" since all civilized people are against
> war as a principle)
> has exploited this incident as a case for the
> infringement of civil
> liberties in the US. I see it differently. The same
> thing happens to
> people in Europe when they make political
> statements, one way or the
> other, on private property. The main issue here is
> not whether civil
> liberties are being crushed here in the US - anyone
> making that case
> would have to make it very well for me to be
> convinced (but I'm
> listening!) - but the integrity of private property
> when the very
> purpose of that property is to let the public in.
> Far right talk radio
> has been making the very opposite case here, namely
> that a privately
> owned mall has the same status as your own backyard.
> That makes no
> sense since my backyard is not open to the public. I
> assume this will
> be the philosophical aftermath of this, once the
> Iraq crisis is over.
>
> /srl
> -----John Gelles wrote:-----
> Yesterday I wondered if this internet focused
> society
>               was a place that ought to show intense
> concern for
>               the debate and the fact that America
> is at war to
>               defend freedom of speech and freedom
> as we know
>               it from fascist attack and European
> indifference.
>
>               Today I cannot see how Cyber-Soc could
> not be even
>               more concerned than almost any other
> forum. If there
>               is anything we care about it is
> freedom. Freedom is
>               at the heart of the reason for packet
> switching,
>               decentralized control of
> communications, the Arpa-
>               net, Internet, and coming Semantic
> Net.
>
>               Youngsters will die so we can talk
> without fascists
>               like Sadam cutting out our tongues.
> The indifferent
>               French forget yesterday when Hitler
> was cutting out
>               theirs.
>
>               Peace and freedom be with you. Now we
> must die
>               to protect them. Unless, the threat of
> force, the
>               courage of America's youth, and the
> leadership of
>               our commanders let freedom triumph
> without more
>               bloodshed.
>
>
> --
> Dr. Sven R Larson
> Department of Economics
> Skidmore College
> 815, North Broadway
> Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
> (518) 580-5278


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/